On Guemas et al (2013) “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade”

I received a number of emails about the newly published Guemas et al (2013) paper titled “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade”. It’s paywalled. The abstract is here. It reads:

Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now. Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions. Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.

Not too surprisingly ClimateProgress has a post New Study: When You Account For The Oceans, Global Warming Continues Apace about the paper.

The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005.

Figure 1

Figure 1

###########

Figure 2

Figure 2

The abstract also mentions a new-found ability to predict slowdowns in warming. But the warming of tropical Pacific ocean heat content is dependent on the 3-year La Niña events of 1954-57, 1973-76 and 1998-01 and on the freakish 1995/96 La Niña, Figure 3. And the warming of sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans, Figure 4, depends on strong El Niño events.

Figure 3

Figure 3

###########

Figure 4

Figure 4

CLOSING

Can Guemas et al (2013) can predict 3-year La Niñas and freakish La Niñas like the one in 1995/96? Can they predict strong El Niño events, like those in 1986/87/88, 1997/97 1997/98 and 2009/10? Both are unlikely—the specialized ENSO forecast models have difficulty projecting beyond the springtime predictability barrier every year.

FURTHER READING

For further information about the problems with ocean heat content data, refer to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?

And for further information about the natural warming of the global oceans, see “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge.”

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
207 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richardscourtney
April 10, 2013 11:02 am

To the left of centre:
re your post at April 10, 2013 at 10:02 am. Noted, and laughed at.
Richard

April 10, 2013 11:08 pm

Izen says,
” but do you think that will show as a temperature pulse with the shallower ocean warming first and then the deeper layers slowly catching up? Or a change in salinity as that affects density driven convection more than temperature in the deep ocean.”
Uh, definitely yes and definitely no.
Perhaps you wish to argue that your downwelling IR increases surface salinity? Yes, until it rains, but temperature is a stronger factor than salinity in water density.
The mainstream is expostulating the deep ocean heat sink without any data and with no plausible mechanism for the “heat” to get there.

Wayne2
April 11, 2013 5:33 am

@To the left: Yes, climate models are routinely adjusted in ways that make no sense. For example, the effect of clouds has been neglected for decades because prominent climate researchers — who control the purse and journal strings — have declared that they have a small positive feedback and people should be studying CO2. The way the simplistic climate models calculate the effects of clouds, as I understand it, is to throw in a coefficient for clouds then tweak it until they best fit the past.
Which is the opposite of what you say. No holdout, just training. Which is why the models still do so poorly in actually predicting, you know, the future.
(It’s my impression that back-casting is the same as “testing” or “retrospective prediction”, but I use the term back-casting to distinguish what they do from what should be done.)

Bill Illis
April 11, 2013 7:39 am

Here is Trenberth’s Climate Model (CCSM4) forecast for OHC from 2005 to 2100.
http://s21.postimg.org/e4ozrdnyv/Trenberth_s_OHC_Climate_Model.png
The trend for the 0-700M Ocean is 0.89 10^22 joules/year
Actuals from 2004 to 2012 is 0.146 10^22 joules/year (or just 15% of that forecast).
The trend for the 0-Bottom is 1.63 10^22 joules/year
Actuals from 2004 to 2012 is 0.52 10^22 joules/year (or just 32% of that forecast) (2000M to the Bottom is Zero).
http://s15.postimg.org/dyz8hdx0r/OHC_700_2000_M_Dec2012.png

DP111
April 11, 2013 3:28 pm

Ian W wrote: April 8, 2013 at 10:24 pm Well having proven the model capability to their satisfacton by ‘retrospectively predicting’ – they should now predict the future 24 – 36 months using the same model and assumptions and parameterizations. Should be simple for climate modelers.
No problem at all. They will publish the results (peer reviewed of course) in 38 months.

DR
April 12, 2013 8:11 am

Illis
Your posts are always worth reading. Is it possible for you to do a guest post and/or do a more complete report with references and citations so others can use the material to prove the point?

Lars P.
April 13, 2013 3:59 pm

CAGW-supporter language:
stopped, stalled = slowdown!
Rule nr 22: always torture the language such way not to tell anything that is damaging to your position.
I must admire the way how the CAGW-supporters control the language game.
“Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead”
ok, this is a heavy one. “retrospective predictions” – does this mean they have successfully fudged a model to mask the warming up to 5 years? And this is the “retrospective prediction”? And where is the “retrospective prediction” of 16 years an no warming?
Physics Major says:
April 8, 2013 at 9:31 pm
A “retrospective prediction” must take the prize for the world’s greatest oxymoron.
agree, this is a pearl of CAGW-science
To the left of centre says:
April 10, 2013 at 8:36 am
….I have no in-depth knowledge of climate modelling so cannot really comment on whether or not their “back-casting” is robust or not. I was simply commenting, as you say, that testing models by using data up to some point in the past and then comparing what your model predicts with what is actually observed is a fairly standard practice.
As explained by Bill Illis and Bob in the original post. Fudging the model to show no warming and assuming it went in the oceans is not supported by data from the real world.
Here again the posts of Bill Illis:
( Bill Illis says:
April 11, 2013 at 7:39 am
http://s17.postimg.org/y2qsxky8f/OHC_Missing_Energy_Dec2012.png
Bill Illis says:
April 9, 2013 at 6:05 pm
http://s15.postimg.org/dyz8hdx0r/OHC_700_2000_M_Dec2012.png
So fudging models but ignoring reality will not bring science forward.
“The ocean ate my global warming” is really one of the sentences that starts to stick with climate science.

1 7 8 9